Australia pays the natural gas companies to steal our natural gas then we run out of natural gas and pay them to buy it back from them.
(As more fossil gas consumers electrify, an ever smaller population must support the network fixed costs, driving up costs and continuing to more rapidly push consumers to electrify; like bankruptcy, it happens slowly, and then all of a sudden)
https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-blow-to-fossil-gas-as-regula...
https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/energy-blog-ar...
However, the primary dispatchable electricity generation comes from gas fired power plants. To say, Australia has a dependance on gas is an understatement.
Unfortunately, there has been considerable in-action and lack of investment mainly due to the main political parties having competing energy policies. The conservatives previously had a "gas led" generation plan, but due to the gas crisis they have switched to a nuclear-led proposal (Australia has no nuclear power plants, and no expertise in them). The current government is pushing renewables and storage, however progress has been slow due to land owners being unwilling to allow new transmission lines and environmental concerns about offshore wind infrastructure.
Meanwhile about half of Australia's energy comes aging coal power plants, whose live has been extended, all of which are due for phased retirement in the near future.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.")
https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")
I think it is a stretch to say that the nuclear proposal is creating any investment uncertainty. What is there to be uncertain about? Optimistically the coalition has to win government then the plant will take >10 years to be designed and constructed (probably much longer assuming that something goes wrong politically). The power produced by such a plant will almost certainly be expensive. Unless Labor makes more supportive sounds it'd be quite reckless to invest in the project as a private investor.
That is far enough out and a small enough commercial risk that it probably doesn't change the investment landscape in the here and now. We could see any number of similar policies as we feel the political backlash from mismanaging our energy infrastructure.
So not so much a problem with Nuclear, but the diversion of funds from other projects needed to meet existing 2035 targets. Still, if the leader of the coalition is able to invent viable small nuclear reactors, bring that much capacity online in such a short time, and produce cheaper electricity than 2037 tech solar/batteries or wind/batteries in the vast, sun drenched plains and deserts of Australia, he probably deserves his Nobel prize and a seat on the board of Westinghouse or similar. After all, taxpayers need to pay for the nationalized generation since no corporations seem willing to invest in this amazing opportunity with its achievable deadlines and budget.
Why would either of those things matter now though? Aren't renewables supposed to be an economic option?
People can "just" invest and make money. There just needs to be some mild support to let the projects start up and maybe I've missed a policy document but it seems unlikely that the Coalition would want to do anything about that.
There is an outside risk that in 10 years an extremely expensive source of power enters the market. Assuming a bunch of relatively unlikely stars align, including that someone is mad enough to fund a nuclear plant in Australia despite the usual vocal political opposition that has scuttled the industry in most other western countrys. There is nothing there that threatens solar investment; people invest in riskier capital projects all the time. We're in the middle of what appears to be an energy crisis right now.
The targets and stuff were an issue when mass solar buildouts were an ideological stunt. But we delayed that idiocy for long enough and it appears that private investment will take it from here as long as the environmental approvals etc aren't too onerous.
[0] https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Fi...
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction...
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/12/01/unparalleled-in...
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/initiatives/engineerin...
https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strateg...
It is firmly in the camp of, government bans a thing, let the market solve it. For better or worse...
* Gas stoves are awful for indoor air quality
* Compared to induction, they're awful to cook on
Maybe someone will make one with pot motion sensor where turning pot around controls levels. But I’m not holding hope.
So the underlying surface is smooth but you can have a physical control.
And renting is woeful.
Landlords renting out anything don't benefit from solar, so they don't install it. Landlords renting out apartments won't want the fees for EV chargers or ripping out gas or even having aircon.
Not all landlords are obstinate about it, some are nice. But the financial incentives are certainly not there.
When I was renting an apartment and talking to people about solar, EV, gas vs electric, heat pumps... I definitely felt like I was a second class citizen.
So instead of selling the gas externally (because they are contractually bound to do so) and then import other gas, I would suggest buying gas from elsewhere to deliver to fulfill the contract and then use the local gas locally.
It would need an analysis of costs.
The reason for all this trouble is apparently the gas field production has gone down faster than predicted.
The parts of Australia that have gas and are exporting it (the west and north), are quite distant from the parts of Australia that are running out of gas and need it locally (the east and south).
In this scenario, it's easier and cheaper to use existing export terminals to send ships to those other parts of the country that need the gas. Unfortunately the optics of doing this is bad.
There's a lot of joking/confusion around US oil being sold to foreign countries while buying foreign oil. However, a lot of that has to do with the fact the refineries are built to use heavy crude oil while the US oil is light/sweet crude so that they aren't really compatible. Sometimes, the export/import practices sound dumb on face value, but turn out to have some logic once the surface is scratched.
The best analogy for USA equivalent is that imagine Alaska is where we have a bunch of oil / gas, but we need it in New York and Miami.
We can’t lay pipes because of terrain / distance, and the road infrastructure is pretty spotty too.
The companies extracting / producing / selling the oil/gas off in Alaska are private and separate to the companies wanting to buy it in NYC or Miami. There’s minimal government oversight.
It might work out cheaper for the companies to buy gas coming from eg Europe or Canada or Mexico for NYC/Miami vs Alaska (in our instance it would be SE Asia / China). Or from Alaska.
and their beaches are national treasures compared to Texas where they subscribed to the "drill baby drill" mantra and "fuck those beaches. it's just sand" mantra. it is funny comparing California beaches where they did allow offshore drilling for a side-by-side comparison of how they are affected. Take Seal Beach with all of the tarballs vs something nearby like Santa Monica.
The are decomposed by a number of bacteria, and unless you happen to know of a spill nearby are not an indicator of a problem. In fact drilling for the oil can reduce them by reducing the pressure that would otherwise squeeze them out.
The US would just lay pipe through the lands of the native peoples and screw the expense or the impact on those lands. The fact Australia is an island makes shipping a very enticing option.
In this case, it wouldn't.
The longest gas pipeline in the world is the PetroChina. The main part of that is around 4,000km (2,500mi) long, BUT passes through 66 cities, and includes 8 branches.
A pipeline from West to East in Australia would be 4,000km long in a perfectly straight line, but have near no branches, and pass through no infrastructure at all for well over 3,500km of it. You're talking areas that are so remote that you need fixed wing aircraft for maintenance because helicopters don't have range, areas that even vehicles will have to carry extended fuel tanks because the nearest fuel supply might be 1,000 miles away, with little to no water supplies.
It could take days or more to get to the pipe for inspection, security would be non-existent.
And all this in a climate that is ... unforgiving. One of the nearby towns to where such a pipeline is situated has the following factoids:
At least one month a year where the mean maximum temperature is 107F.
Holds a record of 160 consecutive days above 100F.
Regularly records 110F+, with record temperatures approaching 120F.
It's highly suspected that the uninhabited areas along that route would exceed those temperatures. Multiple towns in the vicinity have exceeded 120F in the shade on multiple occasions.
The railroad nearby holds the world record for the straightest section of train track: 500mi+ dead straight (though not dead level).
Shipping is the only way to go, really.
side note - why do OIL markets use WINE names for their industrial products?
It is hyperbole, but still appropriate when you consider the meaning of the phrase 'it was a steal'. As with pretty much all extracted resources in Australia, the royalties paid are a pittance relative to the value. The abundance of this type of common wealth in Australia makes people undervalue them in my opinion (to the benefit of the extractors - who have very active and successful lobbyists).
Australia was sold a long time ago, and regular people are now paying the price.
Having natural gas in the ground is not really that lucrative - having technology to extract that gas and later sell it is.
You might argue as much as you want but try to heat up a house with gas that is far below the ground, good luck